Video Testimony Not Constitutional

The court says Zachariah Rogerson's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers in court was violated when Dubuque County Judge Monica Ackley issued an order to allow witnesses in Rogerson's drunk driving trial to testify remotely.

Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines.

Credit John Pemble / Iowa Public Radio

In 2012 Rogerson was involved in a single-vehicle car accident on Hales Mill Road in Dubuque County. Rogerson was subsequently charged with unintentionally causing serious injury to four people by operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The court struck down Ackley's order, in part because there was no attempt by the state to show an exceptional circumstance requiring remote testimony. Instead, the order assumed video testimony is equivalent to testimony given in person.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with this assumption.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Edward Mansfield, the court acknowledges technology may someday reach a point where remote testimony can satisfy the constitutional right to confront one’s accusers in court. However the court says right now, two-way video testimony is no substitute for a face-to-face courtroom appearance and may only be allowed when absolutely necessary.

"Technology has changed since the late eighteenth century, but human nature has not," writes Mansfield. "Social pressure to tell the truth can be diminished when the witness is far away rather than physically present with the defendant in the courtroom."

Technology has changed since the late eighteenth century, but human nature has not. -Justice Edward Mansfield

The rest of the bench concurred with Mansfield with the exception of Justice Daryl Hecht who concurred specially. While agreeing Rogerson's trial lacked a necessity for remote testimony, Hecht disagrees videoconferencing denies a defendant the ability to confront his or her accusers.

Drake University Law School’s Bob Rigg says the ruling means witness testimony in Iowa courts will always take place in person, with few exceptions.

"There has to be some public interest that's going to be advanced that supersedes a defendant's right for confrontation," says Rigg. "And that's a really high standard."

In the past, remote testimony has been allowed in cases of illness or child sexual assault. Testimony via videoconferencing is also common if both sides agree to the arrangement.

As a result of this ruling, three out-of-state witnesses who were injured in the accident will have to travel to Dubuque County to testify in Rogerson's trial.

Related Content

Tonight, the Iowa Supreme Court will consider the question, “Do witnesses in criminal trials need to testify in person? Or is remote, two-way video testimony just as affective?

The state of Iowa claims two-way remote video testimony is just as effective as in-person testimony. Additionally, video testimony is less expensive and less time consuming, and therefore there is large incentive to use remote video testimony more extensively.

The Iowa Bar Association has recommended to the Iowa State Supreme Court that Iowa’s law schools should institute a “diploma privilege” for graduates of Iowa's law schools, meaning that graduates wouldn’t have to take the bar exam to practice law in the state.

Is allowing lawyers who haven’t passed a bar exam to practice a good idea? President of the Iowa State Bar Association Guy Cook says it’s an overdue change, “Iowa’s bar exam doesn’t test knowledge of Iowa law. This proposal wouldn’t work everywhere, but in Iowa, it could.”

Imagine you are married. You have a daughter, and when your spouse gets a job in another state, you plan for everything - including the fact that your new state does not recognize your same-sex marriage.